WA v Delaney

[2020] WASCA 93

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest inadequacy
5. › Possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply
6. › Whether sentence of 3 years 2 months' imprisonment manifestly inadequate
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Drug offences
4. › Customary sentencing standards
5. › Possession of trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine
6. › Relevance of increase in maximum penalty to life imprisonment
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1)(a), 34(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Prospects of rehabilitation
5. › Weight to be given to aspirational statements of rehabilitation without demonstrated steps
6. › Whether aspirational statements justify departure from customary sentencing range for serious drug offences

Quick Take

Aspirational statements of rehabilitation without demonstrated steps do not justify a sentence significantly below the customary range for serious drug offences involving trafficable quantities of methylamphetamine. For possession of approximately 111g of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply, a sentence of 4 years 9 months' imprisonment (after 25% discount for early guilty plea) was appropriate, having regard to the increase in maximum penalty to life imprisonment.